DT Election 2003 - Questionnaire

Yes, providing the DT board has nominated members at least on the PLC overseeing what is happening within and the DT Board continues to remain in overall control.

Subsequent to a consititutional change I believe directors of DT subsidiaries should not be allowed to take up elected posts on the DT board.

There are two separate director groups and hence two answers a) I am not convinced that Executive Directors need sit on the D/T Board or if they do not as voting members. b) The Dons Trust Board elects two Non-Executive Directors to represent the D/T Board on the AFC PLC Board so in this case yes.

No, I don't believe there should be any subsidiary board members on the Dons Trust Board, whether elected or co-opted. The current constitution requires that a majority of members of the board of a subsidiary are also Dons Trust Board members, a situation that must be reviewed by the Board and members after the elections. I would strongly favour separate boards, so that the Dons Trust Board can properly scrutinise the work of the club, and ensure that it is working in accordance with the Trust's objectives. There may be a case for having a Trust board member on the AFCW PLC board to represent the Trust's interests, but this should be someone who sees themselves primarily as a Trust board member. It could possibly be a ‘rotating' appointment, with the board member changing every six months or so to allow a number of board members to understand the club's day-to-day concerns, while preventing them becoming focused solely on the Club. Of course, while being separate the Trust and subsidiary boards should maintain a good and communicative working relationship. For example, the Trust board may often want to invite subsidiary board members to attend, but not vote at, its meetings.

The short answer is no.

Firstly, I will assume that the issue of whether we have the right organization structure and what the roles of each board are is not within the scope of this question. I also assume that the question means can they hold these roles at the same time.

The current proposal is that the AFCW Plc board be comprised of directorates as follows:
a) Two independent non-executive directors.
b) Three executive positions that are responsible for operations
c) Two non-executive directors representing the DTB.

Firstly to deal with the two independent non-executive directors. Independent is defined as independent of the DT Board.

As for (b) and (c) at the moment both groups represent the DTB in that all are members of the DTB. However, it appears to be the intention that the executive would not be on the DT Board.

My view is that the executive (b) should not be on the DTB as this makes it nonsense of reporting lines and delegated responsibilities. If the reporting lines are subsidiary directors to the DT board then by also serving on the DT board they are in fact answering to themselves. So my answer is no.

The current position is that is the other way around. You have to be elected to take up one of these roles. As for the Non Executive directors at (c) I really don't see a need for any such role as long as reporting lines are clearly defined. As long as the subsidiary directors clearly understand their delegated powers and authorities and recognize that responsibility for key decisions rests with the Dons trust board or the members, there should be no requirement.

No - never in a million years should this be allowed. See Q11.

I would like the DT board to have 2/3 direct representatives on the PLC boards but not as “executives”. I would not want any DT board members to be “executives” for the PLC.

No.

We need to make the distinction between executive and non-executive directors.

Obviously the Dons Trust needs to appoint non-executive directors to sit on the AFCW Plc Board to ensure that it acts in accordance with the wishes of the Dons Trust and its members. I firmly believe that anyone appointed by the Dons Trust to act as non-executive members of the AFCW Plc Board should be an elected member of the Dons Trust Board.

As for the question of executive directors of AFCW Plc, there are obvious conflicts of interest, as they would be effectively asked to monitor their own performance. My personal view is that the constitution should be amended to prevent executive directors of AFCW Plc being eligible for election to the Dons Trust Board. Nevertheless it remains vital that the Boards of the Trust and AFCW Plc maintain a good, close working relationship. This issue is fundamental to the structures of AFCW Plc and the Dons Trust, so I would like to see consultation with the membership before constitutional change is formally recommended by the Dons Trust Board.

No.

At the moment the constitution insists so until the L& C group sort this one out the answer has to be yes.

This question is not clear, but I am taking it to mean Executive Directors of AFC Wimbledon/AFCW plc and not the non-executive directors. It is also unreasonably loaded to denying a certain proposition for which there is uncertain backing from the DT members.

Until there is a change to the constitution there is no reason why they should not. As I have said elsewhere, in the case of the current directors standing, their input to the DT Board and AFCW over the last 18 months has been outstanding. Without them we would not have what we have now.

If there is to be a change to these structures then it must be as part of a full discussion with the membership not merely based on the beliefs of a particular pressure group.

I am split between understanding the concerns of some members on this issue (and I share some of those concerns) and also believing that DT Board members could play an important role on subsidiary boards. I believe that DT Board members are wholly accountable to the membership (or at least should be). Given my ambition to see voting patterns passed on to the members I also believe that it would be fairly simple for a diligent membership to ensure that the board were accountable and removed by way of an election if deemed necessary. It should not need a board member to agree to stand down in some circumstances (ie we must ensure the board can be removed or at least challenged by way of a ‘vote of no confidence').

I wholly appreciate the fact that whilst we may currently enjoy a situation whereby it is highly unlikely that anyone would dabble in skullduggery we must be mindful of the legacy we leave the future fans of AFC Wimbledon. If we can organise and solidify a process to trigger an election leading to potential removal of members of the Trust board we could have a directly elected and accountable member on a subsidiary and it be a benefit rather than something to fear.

No, as I feel this is a conflict of interest.

No is my initial response, although clearly I'd need to know how effective this structure has been on the present board which is something I'm unsure of. I think for the ‘top down' role that I believe the DT should have, then there shouldn't be any representatives of the PLC on the DT board apart for reporting purposes only.

Yes.

This needs further clarification and discussion before I can actually decide what is in the best interest. So long as accountability is open and visible to the board and ultimately the members then I will be happy. Should a Trust board member also resign from WISA membership?

This question starts from an assumption that I don't accept, which is that the members have decided what they want the DT board to do. It is 18 months since the football club was set up and yet since then the DT board has never had a detailed discussion about what our strategy should be, how we should operate and how we should agree this with the members.

There are some major decisions to be made, such as should the board's role be strategic or operational; should the roles of the DT board, the PLC and the club be somehow merged; what should be referred to members and what should be left to appointed managers, etc. etc?

Some candidates (and, in my view, the existing board) see themselves getting into the details of what the football club does. If this is how it is to be run, then I think the PLC board needs to be present and the answer to the question is “yes”.

However, if the board has a strategic and advisory role (as well as safeguarding the assets of the stadium and club) then I don't think members of the PLC board need to be on both and my answer is “no”.

BUT, the DTB has never asked the members what they think and want.

It bothers me that there are a lot of people who have already decided that the answer to this question is “no” but I struggle to understand how they can be so certain before any debate and before the members say what they want the board to do. So I am standing for election because I want to say my piece in the debate and to ensure that the debate is held and heard, not pre-decided by people who see it as a way of “reducing the power of the club”.